Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

newsroom.spotify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 495 posts

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#351

Post by saurik »

scarface74 wrote: post #267
saurik wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can build and add Dropbox-like functionality to their product suite (and I was even involved in a couple such efforts a while back)... but Spotify is not at all like that, in that not only is having the music licenses they have more than just some engineering work, people bring their music to Spotify , and so you can't even have a few ins and a major investor and then try and quickly get the same licenses to h…

That’s not the concept behind “a feature not a product”. The entire idea is that a major company can add streaming as a bullet point to their ecosystem - like Apple and Amazon - and doesn’t need to be profitable by itself. That is the “DropBox problem”. DropBox is trying to be a sustainable company while Apple, Microsoft, Google, Adobe and Amazon just throw it in as a feature in their portfolios. This is the same wit…

The business of Spotify isn't "streaming music": it is "music licensing"; and, even there, it isn't like most of the music was due to Spotify going out of their way to contact people and get their music on their service: people--not even "labels", but people--upload their music directly to Spotify.

You can compete with that, but it is a massive uphill battle; it is similar to trying to create a new app market competitor from scratch and assuming that all of the apps which exist on someone else's platform--many of which might not even be maintained by people who give a shit anymore--are somehow going to appear on your platform.

> There are a dozen VOD services with the same library because the industry has standardized licenses.

This is entirely untrue... hell: Apple doesn't even have a lot of the content that exists out there anymore, as numerous titles now can only be purchased from Amazon, as it was essentially uploaded directly. I wish I could obtain all of the movies/TV I consume from Apple, but that just isn't how this industry operates.

> There are only three major record labels and if you can get deals with those, you cover most of the music people care about.

This wouldn't be sufficient to cause most users to switch from Spotify. It certainly wouldn't get me to switch from Spotify, and I don't even like Spotify!

> The smaller labels will come along

The long tail of music doesn't even involve "labels" :/.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#352

Post by deltree7 »

bastardoperator wrote: post #319
chitowneats wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. Not as sure proof as paying people to do nothing. Or worse, paying people who are actively working against the interests of the company, intentionally or otherwise.

If I pay someone to do nothing, who is at fault? The person who shows up ready to work everyday or the person who made a bad hiring decision and doesn't have the work for that person? I'm not arguing against layoffs, I'm arguing that the people making the hiring mistakes are not accountable. If I as a CFO give the green light to increase the company's workforce by 10% and two years later make a full reverse, that CFO…

This is extremely naive take. No one can predict the future.

If I hire a bunch of construction workers expecting to sell 100 homes and suddenly the housing market collapse and I need to only build 50 homes that I have contract for, I need to fire some construction workers.

It is as simple as that.

No one can predict business cycles and that is the fundamental driver of sales and input costs. If one can successfully predict business cycles, they can be a superior macro investor and make billions.

The entire HN crowd talks about as though they never made any bad future decisions.

How many of you invested in stocks in 2021 that is down 50%? Did you cut down on subscriptions? Why don't you fire yourself for making stupid decisions?

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#353

Post by scarface74 »

saurik wrote: post #332
ben7799 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few actually feel good about bringing their music to spotify. Other than the very few giant artists getting the sweetheart deals with guaranteed payouts most feel like they're forced to bring their music to spotify even though they know the whole thing is just bad.

I don't understand how this detail changes anything: you still can't just build a competitor to Spotify and magically have all of its music.

You don’t need all of its music.

You need the three major music producers and the rest will come.

But that’s not the point. The “feature not a product” saying means that a major company has your entire reason for existing as a feature in their product.

Streaming music is already just a feature for Apple and Amazon.

Just like today, you wouldn’t create a separate spell checker application like in the 80s.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#354

Post by alldayeveryday »

bastardoperator wrote: post #277
phamilton4 wrote: post #127

I get needing to keep a company lean and that businesses operate to make money... But most of these recent layoffs really make me feel uneasy. Spotify is a little different because AFAIK they are still operating at a negative net income, but still let's take a look at this. They're going to let go 600 people.. that's maybe an annual 90 million in savings (150k salary). The company's revenue is about 9 billion with -3…

I don't think it is that complex. Who benefits from these mass layoffs? Everyone at the top benefits, and everyone at the bottom suffers. You are spot on when it comes to impact of layoffs. If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. To your point, I can't take any executive seriously if they're not self reflecting on their own failure. Mass layoffs should equal a new board i…

Who benefitted from the mass hirings? Stock holders, and also workers. Did the workers complain when the job market (esp in tech) was on fire and wages were increasing? No. Did they blame the people at the top for their new job and wages? No.

But, now they want to blame leaders when there are mass layoffs. I think the blame is misplaced. The root cause was the stock market, and better yet blame the fed. The incentive was to show growth at all costs, even at the expense of burning cash. Leaders who did not optimize to growth were fired in many cases. But the game changed when stimulus and endless money printing stopped.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#355

Post by scarface74 »

saurik wrote: post #351
scarface74 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the concept behind “a feature not a product”. The entire idea is that a major company can add streaming as a bullet point to their ecosystem - like Apple and Amazon - and doesn’t need to be profitable by itself. That is the “DropBox problem”. DropBox is trying to be a sustainable company while Apple, Microsoft, Google, Adobe and Amazon just throw it in as a feature in their portfolios. This is the same wit…

The business of Spotify isn't "streaming music": it is "music licensing"; and, even there, it isn't like most of the music was due to Spotify going out of their way to contact people and get their music on their service: people--not even "labels", but people --upload their music directly to Spotify. You can compete with that, but it is a massive uphill battle; it is similar to trying to create a new app market compet…

Why are you even arguing this? There already exist two major competitors that are treating streaming music as just an insignificant portion of a multibillion dollar business - Amazon and Apple. Also to a lesser extent Google/YouTube.

As far as the content that’s unavailable - it doesn’t matter.

The long tail theory has been debunked decades ago (https://mackinstitute.wharton.upenn.edu/2018/long-tail-theor...). You can’t make money at scale with out having the most popular content.

> This wouldn't be sufficient to cause most users to switch from Spotify. It certainly wouldn't get me to switch from Spotify, and I don't even like Spotify!

You’re a geek posting to HN (as am I) you don’t represent the mainstream and it doesn’t matter if people switch or not. Spotify needs to be profitable as an ongoing concern and it isn’t and will never be extremely profitable. Its competitors don’t have to have a profitable streaming service.

> Amazon, as it was essentially uploaded directly. I wish I could obtain all of the movies/TV I consume from Apple, but that just isn't how this industry operates.

Again, a successful business doesn’t depend on the long tail - that’s been debunked by every single market - app stores, music, movies, etc. the vast majority of money is made from hits.

You’re also failing to realize that Spotify’s issue of trying to be profitable just streaming music while its competitors can sell at cost to prop up other businesses.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#356

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

overgard wrote: post #249
popularrecluse wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just live in a world now where propagating false and dangerous misinformation is merely offering a differing point of view. We were happy to let subject-matter experts help build the modern world, but then turn on them as we seek out the information that comports with the way we wish the world to be. It's good to be skeptical, but a very significant portion of the population has serious epistemic deficiencies.

Ah "misinformation". (Which seems to be far-left speak for "has a different opinion and I'd rather censor them than argue with them".) Rogan is a comedian and has never claimed any special expertise. If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do?

> If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do?

It says absolutely nothing about the "legacy news media". It just means that many people are incredibly gullible.

Joe Rogan does not have more credibility, but some people THINK he does, and that's the problem.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#357

Post by ss48 »

bastardoperator wrote: post #277
phamilton4 wrote: post #127

I get needing to keep a company lean and that businesses operate to make money... But most of these recent layoffs really make me feel uneasy. Spotify is a little different because AFAIK they are still operating at a negative net income, but still let's take a look at this. They're going to let go 600 people.. that's maybe an annual 90 million in savings (150k salary). The company's revenue is about 9 billion with -3…

I don't think it is that complex. Who benefits from these mass layoffs? Everyone at the top benefits, and everyone at the bottom suffers. You are spot on when it comes to impact of layoffs. If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. To your point, I can't take any executive seriously if they're not self reflecting on their own failure. Mass layoffs should equal a new board i…

In this respect, I think that they're hoping that if they get enough experienced and higher income people laid off, that can compensate for the loss in productivity and the reduced workload with whoever remains.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#359

Post by rxyz »

Terretta wrote: post #241
gadders wrote: post #14

I got asked to do a survey when I opened the Spotify app last week. All the questions were of a "What would you do if this price rise happened?" and most of the varieties had the family plan going to £20.99. I don't know what they are smoking to think that they're worth more than a Netflix subscription. Video > audio. If they put the family plan price up I'll cancel it and use Prime Music or something.

Apple One which includes Apple Music, family app sharing, family storage, and family privacy (essentially TOR for everyday browsing, except through a privacy preserving tango between Apple and CloudFlare) is a surprisingly good value relative to the standalone music offerings. https://www.apple.com/apple-one/ Family is $22.95 a month, with 5 other people: - Apple Music - Apple TV+ - Apple Arcade - iCloud+ (with photo…

Apple Music is very clunky, much worse experience than spotify. I tried twice to switch. I would recommend paying a dollar for icloud+ and ignoring the rest.

Re: Spotify reducing employee base by about 6%

#360

Post by f6v »

alldayeveryday wrote: post #354
bastardoperator wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is that complex. Who benefits from these mass layoffs? Everyone at the top benefits, and everyone at the bottom suffers. You are spot on when it comes to impact of layoffs. If you want to destroy productivity, firing people is a sure proof way of doing that. To your point, I can't take any executive seriously if they're not self reflecting on their own failure. Mass layoffs should equal a new board i…

Who benefitted from the mass hirings? Stock holders, and also workers. Did the workers complain when the job market (esp in tech) was on fire and wages were increasing? No. Did they blame the people at the top for their new job and wages? No. But, now they want to blame leaders when there are mass layoffs. I think the blame is misplaced. The root cause was the stock market, and better yet blame the fed. The incentive…

> Did they blame the people at the top for their new job and wages?

Companies aren’t very upfront about over-hiring.

Post reply on HN